Serve "actively" in a POR

[fgoodwin]

The requirements for Star, Life and Eagle all state that the Scout must serve "actively" in a position of responsibility for four or six months. My troop defines "actively" as attendance at 67% of all troop meetings and at least four of six monthly campouts.

 

I've read others advocate, instead of an attendance requirement (which is alleged by some to be an additional, and therefore not allowed, requirement) that Scouts be dismissed from their POR if they are not meeting expectations of the SPL (or SM). Of course, the dismissal could still be based on attendance, as in the Scout will be removed if he misses more than a third of troop meetings or campouts.

 

I've done a quick google search, and apparently many troops define serving "actively" in a POR using some combination of troop meeting & campout attendance. How do your troops define serving "actively" in a POR?

[Lisabob]

breathing.

 

Seriously, this is something that many in the troop recognize a need to work on doing a better job with, but as it stands, I have never seen a boy be removed for failing to fulfill the position. And there have been a few cases where it would be justified. We do not have an attendance specification though.

[John-in-KC]

I've seen too many units where Lisa's first comment was appropo

 

To me, serving actively in a POR is not a measure of attendance, it's a measure of work done.

 

Let's use Troop QM for an example:

 

- Are the tents turned in aired and in good repair? Does QM take care of things he sees needing work?

- Is the cast iron properly oiled off and prepped for storage?

- Are the patrol boxes properly equippeed and re-stocked (is Troop QM working with patrol QMs and grubmasters)?

- Are the gas bottles (big and little) ready for use?

 

If the Scout consistently passes muster with the equipment over time, then yes, he's fulfilling his POR. He may be spending most of his troop meetings in grubby clothes working. That's ok.

 

BTW, a new QM will either need a mentor from one of the older boys or from the TC equipment coordinator. His job is to actively serve, NOT do 100% discovery learning.

 

Extrapolate the concept to the other PORs of a Troop.

 

Whose call? At the end of the day, it's the SM... and I trust he is consulting with the various TC members responsible for oversight of the functions performed by the Scouts.

[click23]

There is a great piece over at netcommish on this topic, http://netcommish.com/AskAndy95.asp

[evmori]

Serve actively has nothing to do with attendance and should not be defined as such. Serve actively will vary for each POR. Using attendance as a requirement defeats the purpose.

 

If an SPL can't be at the next PLC, it's his responsibility to make sure one of his APSL's is ready to step up & lead the PLC. How he does this, not whether he was present or not, should be used to judge how he serves.

 

We have removed boys from POR's. One was removed for lying. Showed up all the time.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

In another thread it was commented that the poster wished the Scoutmaster still had the authority to "impeach" a scout from his POR. I dont know of any BSA publication that says that he can't. When a boy assumes a POR, the Troop is responsible to train the boy to do the job. The Troop is then responsible to be sure the boy is doing his job. There may be PORs that demand prescence at meetings and activities, there may be some that dont demand as much, but its up to the Troop, working with the boy, to develop a plan that is acceptable to both. That which gets the POR done to the benefit of the Troop and fits in with what the boy can do. if the boy is not living up to what he needs to do, this should be communcated to him, asked if he needs help, what can be done, what doesnt he understand. If the job isnt getting done becaue the boy "doesnt care" he can be removed from that job. I would be sure there is plenty documentation on the reason along with what support and coaching the boy received, but he still has to do the job and if he doesnt, he is gone, and before the end of his term of office, else it counts.

 

We had an SPL who wanted to be Patton. He wanted to order the boys around. We talked to him, coached him, we had Troop Leadership Training with multiple team building exrecises and none of it took. He took over each time and wanted to dictate. After multiple scoutmaster conferences and a Board of Review, he was releived from the position. This should always be the last resort, the nuclear option as it were, but it has to be available(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[OldGreyEagle]

I reread my post sometime after posting, I do feel I need a point of clarification. When I said the SPL wanted to be Patton, I did not mean to demean, degrade, or other wise defame General Patton, a brilliant leader and we were lucky to have him around in WWII. I meant to emphasize that Boy Scouts is not to have a rigid military leadership structure, that is all

[Venividi]

For those that have removed a scout from a POR for not performing his duties, could you describe the experience, and the steps taken?

 

I suspect/fear that, while the removal would be done in a private conversation between the scout and the scoutmaster, the facts of the removal will become quickly known by the rest of the scouts of the troop, and the removed scout would be subject to embarassment among his peers. I also suspect that the parents of the removed scout would come barrelling down on the SM like a freight train, no matter how delicatly handled, and how much coaching, requests, and conversations had been held prior to removal.

 

So question to those that have done removals, how do you handle it to minimize/prevent embarassment to the scout? How do you convey the facts to the rest of the troop, and minimize razzing done by the other scouts at school the next week? Are such concerns overblown?

 

Thanks,

Venividi

[OldGreyEagle]

The the afore mentioned experience this is what we did.

 

The SPL was quite dictatorial and short when talking to scouts, the scoutmaster talked to him multiple times alone, trying to take the edge off. When it became evident the scout was not changing his behavior, the scoutmaster had a couple of talks with the SPL with an ASM in attendance and they both took notes which they had the SPL sign, not showing approval, just an acknowledgement that the conversation took place. The SM then called the parents, the SPL's father was an ASM at the time. The SM went over the coversations with the father and showed him the signature acknowledging the conversations. The father understood what was at stake. We had had and comtinued to have complaints from boys and parents about the SPL's attitude and treatment of others. After a few more incidents, the SPL was told in person and backed up with a letter saying what behavior needed to be shown. It wasnt and he was told he was no longer the SPL. The question was as much for the benefit of the troop as anything else. The fallout? The scout was received by his "peers" as being "screwed" by the adults and was elected patrol leader of an older boy patrol. The younger kids who had complained the most were better off, they didnt bother the now ex SPL as he stayed with his older guy gang. As with any termination of employment for cause, the decision to remove him was not a surprise to him, he thought he could get away with it. I think he learned he couldnt do everything he wanted, and the younger boys saw not only did we care about the kids, you also had better do you job as its completion was not guaranteed.